Jack Burkman is the only political consultant who has credibly proven his expertise and knows what he's talking about. He predicted the failure of every candidate's campaigns back in August 2011. (including Romney) He has consistantly held the position that Ron Paul can beat Romney and Obama. And it has played out exactly as he predicted.

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

The Mainstream Media and political bigwigs in both parties have declared Mitt Romney the presumptive GOP nominee. This “presumptive” declaration is at best premature when even favorable estimates have Romney hundreds of delegates short of reaching the magic number of 1,144 delegates required to win the Republican nomination.

Romney needs about 300 more delegates from the remaining 14 contests to claim the nomination.

There is a final charge being mounted by the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance to make sure Romney does not reach the 1,144 by contesting the last 14 states or by winning hundreds of delegates in states he's supposedly already won.

Recent events, however, indicate that some of Romney’s supposed delegate wins may not be as secure as once thought. This past week, county delegate nominating conventions in Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado were swept by Ron Paul supporters (and anti-Romney activists) leaving Romney with fewer delegates than expected and in the case of Iowa no expectation of delegates whatsoever (SOURCE: PolicyMic).

Clearly, the resistance to Romney’s potential candidacy is mounting a final two-front challenge not only in the upcoming 14 contests taking place next week through June but also in the county and state delegate nominating conventions scheduled through mid-July in 30 states that have already held their primary or caucus (SOURCE: Wikipedia).

In case you were not paying attention:

Romney can lose delegates.

Take a look at Iowa for example, CNN reports Romney to have won at least 7 delegates but in reality Paul supporters have taken the state GOP over and with it the RNC superdelegates (also known as RNC delegates) of chair and vice-chair. Furthermore, Paul supporters are expected to sweep the remaining state delegation slots for Paul in the upcoming state convention coming out of Iowa (SOURCE: IB Times).

In another twist to this scenario, the Massachusetts delegation, a supposedly safe Romney territory, was swept by Paul supporters in district conventions(SOURCE: PolicyMic). Despite the fact that these delegates are bound to vote for Romney in the first round of the convention there is much talk about the ability to vote “abstain” and not offer any support to any candidate in the hopes of forcing a brokered convention.

Four years ago, John McCain was not well liked by many in the grassroots and delegates with that sentiment showed their displeasure by voting “abstain” (SOURCE: Wikipedia). It may well turn out to be that a large number of anti-Romney delegates will have made it into the convention and will nullify this entire election cycle by forcing a brokered convention using this tactic.

In response to this existential threat, the Romney campaign has ordered draconian measures on Republican conventions that would clearly be overtaken by anti-Romney parties and continue their work to attain high percentage, primary wins in the remaining 14 contests (Source: Romney Hawks Believe in Ron Paul Threat).

The Romney campaign must maintain the perception of its inevitability or else lose precious momentum to the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance whose goal is to force a brokered convention.

At a brokered convention, anything can happen.

In 1920, Warren Harding won a brokered convention starting with the least number of bound delegates. He went on to win by a landslide in the general election. Ron Paul has been compared to a present-day Warren Harding (Source: EPJ).

The Romney campaign has also relied on an election schedule packed with winner-take-all contests in relatively friendly states in order to maintain the PERCEPTION of the presumptive nominee.

In what could be a twist of fate, only 4 of the final 14 contests remaining are winner-take-all. This could cause a number of Romney campaign election stumbles in the coming weeks potentially crippling their chances.

This past Saturday, for instance, Ron Paul won the Louisiana caucus with 74% of the vote(Source: Sun Herald). A minor hiccup for the Romney campaign but a potential speed bump as the delegate fight continues forward. However, at the same time, the Alaska GOP was firmly taken over by Ron Paul supporters (allied with activists close to Sarah Palin who has never endorsed Romney) (Source: AK GOP New Chair supports Ron Paul).

Deciding Factor: Next week’s contests in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon will be the first indication of a coalescing anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance that will continue the fight in the following 11 contests and also in a potential brokered convention.

There are many questions to be answered in the next coming weeks:

How many more state GOPs will be overtaken by Ron Paul supporters?

How many more delegations will be won by the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance?

How will the Romney campaign and the Mainstream Media continue to push the idea of the presumptive nominee?

How will the media and political establishment ultimately react to the image of the presumptive nominee slowly being chipped away by the change in political winds?

Whatever happens in the upcoming weeks, this is a turning point in the history of the Republican Party and ultimately the United States and the world.

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

If Ron Paul wins the GOP convention in Tampa, Romney will be embarrassed to a great level. The media will be embarrassed as they've been predicting that Romney would be the eventual GOP nominee. It would be forever damaging to the GOP, the media, and Romney himself if he were to lose at Tampa.

However, if Romney drops out, he can do so in a strategic fashion that not only would save him face, but earn him some credit as the one who salvaged and united the GOP party again. The media would save face because instead of having to explain why they never saw this coming, they can instead claim that Romney would still have likely won if not for his strategic dropping out for the party's sake.

Here are some concession points Romney can make in a proposed concession speech before Tampa.

He has come to realize that in order to beat Obama, the GOP must choose a candidate that will bring in lots of independents and disaffected Democrats. This is about the general election and defeating Obama, at any cost.

He can still act hawkish about war but push the importance of saving the economy as being key to any strategy of protecting the rest of the free world. He can acknowledge that Paul has a great economic plan to save America, leaving us in a better position to protect our allies if we should someday need to do so. He can point out that America would not be able to protect Israel if we are bankrupt and further lose our credit rating. He can state that he will still continue to urge Paul to stand up against bully nations.

He can state in his concession speech that he wishes his pledged delegates to support Ron Paul at Tampa. We know that the stealth ones may do so anyway. However, after Tampa is done, Romney can still feign some influence over party politics by pointing out that he requested his delegates support Paul and they were willing to do so 'for the good of the party'.

Now, this scenario plays well for the media and saves them from great embarrassment. With everyone except Paul and Romney already out, they were well on their way to credibility when they predicted a Romney victory from the onset of the primary season. If Romney strategically drops out, the media can still make the claim that a Romney victory was still inevitable had he not made the decision to drop out. The "official story" of an eventual Romney victory would still have credibility to the average reader/viewer.

This scenario leaves Romney with better political prospects when compared to his prospects after an embarrassment in Tampa. If he waits until Tampa, he will be branded as the guy who lost the GOP Presidential primary two cycles in a row. It will make him out to be one who is to be avoided. I'm sure Paul would express his gratitude to Romney for stepping aside somehow, except for VP. That would not be tolerable.

Finally, this gives the GOP some slack in the noose being tightened around them by us Paul supporters. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying we would side with them in any way. I'm just saying that we would be focusing more on the general election than on pursuing takeovers of local and state GOP offices. If Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, then we will be fighting at every level of the GOP to oust the establishment types. If Paul is the nominee, then we will be very busy getting people to rally around Paul for the general election.

I hope that this gets back to the Romney campaign as a way to avoid embarrassment and to look like the Paul nomination happened by his desire for party unity and a desire to beat Obama as opposed to it happening due to circumstances he lost control of a long time ago. I hope the media wises up and realizes that they should pressure Romney to strategically drop out so their official story doesn't lose credibility.

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

There are approximately six months left until the GOP frontrunner will go head to head with President Obama. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the only two men left standing in the roller coaster ride known as the GOP nominee race, and many Republicans are calling for all candidates to drop out and back Romney on his campaign to the White House. But Ron Paul isn't out; in some states Paul leads Romney in the delegate count, making a Ron Paul victory not so impossible. Isabel J. Gonzalez, president of Youth for Ron Paul, joins us with more on the Texas congressman.

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Robin Koerner is the original "Blue Republican", a term he coined in this article. He also runs WatchingAmerica.com. He is a British permanent resident of the United States.

As I type this, the Supreme Court has just wrapped a day of hearing arguments the case of Arizona vs. United States, concerning Arizona's immigration-related bill, SB 1070.

When it was originally passed, I was an immigrant resident of that state.

I received my greencard two years ago and received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security -- the same letter that is sent to thousands of new immigrants every week -- from which I quote:

We will soon mail you a new Permanent Resident Card... When you receive your card, you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 older. It is the law.

Pretty clear.

While a permanent resident, I am here as a guest, and my carrying my "greencard" is a reasonable step on the path to becoming a proud American -- "reasonable" because any nation needs to know whom it lets in, as part of its responsibility to the security of its citizens.

My rights here depend on the rule and enforcement of law, applied equally to all, regardless of background or color. For that reason, the backlash against new state immigration laws is not in the true sense "liberal", per se. A liberal should support the rule of law that protects the security and the rights of its individual citizens.

I am pleased to see that it now seems that the Feds have decided not to push the "racial discrimination" objection to SB 1070. Not only is that bill blind to color and ethnicity: it specifically protects immigrants from being asked for documents without reasonable suspicion of a violation of law, including the very law of which I was notified when I became an immigrant. Therefore, SB 10707 offers immigrants a protection that is not offered to them in the "Welcome to America" letter I quoted at the top of this article.

Any racism around such laws must surely reside in the idea that we should not seek to enforce established law, or to do so equally, because we want to give a particular ethnic group -- singled out only because we assume rightly or wrongly, that group tends more than any other to violate that particular law (!) -- a pass on their legal obligations.

Evils can only be eliminated when honestly identified. Shouting "racism" where there is none seeks to promote division to the benefit of the group that makes the claim. That fact does not contradict the importance of ensuring that any law officer who seeks implement SB 1070 (or any other law, for that matter) with a bias for or against one race or community suffers the full force of the laws that already protect us all against that evil. And that, in turn, should not under any circumstances be set against the obligation of states like Arizona to protect their citizens from the very real and increasingly violent consequences of illegal immigration.

To be clear, the logic of the position of some of the Left concerning State crackdowns on illegal immigration seems to be, "the laws are unfair because they support discrimination against a particular group that is much more likely to be breaking that law -- even though the same law states that not even basic checks of identity (let alone arrest etc.) can be made until there is reasonable suspicion that the relevant law is being broken". What is meant is that as long as the group that violates a law has a racial identity, we should have no such law. That is to argue from race.

Certainly, America's immigration system needs radical reform to allow more good, hard-working people of whatever origin to contribute to the USA, and as something of a classical liberal, I see the benefits of much more open borders, but those who really want to help immigrants should first learn about the current "legal" immigration system that incentivizes illegal immigration.

It is my fantasy to sit one day as a witness in a Congressional Committee on immigration, and to tell of the 700 pages I had to compile each time I renewed my visa; the $200 I had to pay for a photocopy of one sheet of paper from the Department of Homeland Security; the fact that even after I paid, the DHS didn't send me that document for 200 days, until someone who knew someone made a call to a "special number" etc..

I would tell the Committee that the immigration problem is not so difficult to solve. Secure the border simply because security is the first duty of government, and then do the following.

First, prohibit anyone who has committed a visa/immigration violation from ever becoming a permanent resident (and therefore citizen) of the country. A violator who has American family here may remain only under rolling sponsorship of their American spouse.

This is critical as it will change the incentive calculus for illegal immigrants, and will deal with one of the most important immigration statistics that you have never heard: from 2000 to 2007, two thirds of all legal Mexican immigrants (who represented 35% of all immigrants to the USA) were once here illegally! Those immigrants are making completely rational choices given the system we have, and for commendable reasons. The fault is not with them. It is with us as Americans. This two-thirds compares with the mere 9% of all immigrants who become immigrants legally through work. (Yes, 9%.)

Second, limit family-based immigration to immediate family only. Allow a new citizen to sponsor only his spouse and children into the country - and perhaps, if he can prove the means to support them, elderly parents when they need care. No more uncles, aunties, cousins, grandmothers etc..

Third, send a test case to the supreme court regarding the 14th amendment, which states,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This amendment was passed in 1868 to ensure that all persons, including slaves and their progeny, could be citizens of the nation. Children of diplomats, foreign visitors or similar aliens are not included. Nor was the amendment intended to extend to children of illegal immigrants who perhaps more than any, are not subject to the jurisdiction of this country.

All the while, we can recognize our moral and civic responsibility to those whom were brought here "illegally' as minors to let them settle as American citizens. That benefit need not be extended to those parents who brought them here, although we might wish to allow these new citizens to sponsor their parents to stay on a rolling basis?

Let's finally get to the question of the constitutionality of states' legal efforts to protect themselves from illegal immigration: if such laws are unconstitutional, they must be struck down for that reason alone. But it is the height of hypocrisy by the Federal government, which fails every day in hundreds of ways to act within the confines of the Constitution, to bring suit on such a basis. So once the suits against the States are done, I hope that every state in the Union should take at face value the Federal government's newly found interest in the Constitution, and sue it to force it to meet its own obligations.

They can begin by following Virginia in establishing a state law that protects the basic civil rights of citizens against the anti-Bill of Rights abuses as are contained in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years! A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World